4 ms·

I find it strange that Spotify is able to list almost any band and music out there, and streaming video providers not. They are even forced to create their own

I find it strange that Spotify is able to list almost any band and music out there, and streaming video providers not. They are even forced to create their own content. Seems that the music industry has a better separation between content creators and providers than the movie and series industry.

scarface74 10y ago
It's not that strange. There is only one real avenue to make money off of music -- selling it, either digitally or physically -- besides a subscription service. The movie industry can make money during different "windows". Theatrical releases, PPV from cable companies, iTunes, Amazon, etc., physical rentals, DVD and digital sells, subscription movie services (HBO, Showtime...) and regular cable TV.
- ohitsdom 10y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Artists benefit greatly from repeat customers, so it's to their (and their label's) advantage to expose as many people as possible to their product. This will help drive future profits through the sale of albums, merch, and concert tickets. Movie studios are dealing with a much different dynamic.
  - bbctol 10y ago
    Artists barely make money off of Spotify anyway. It's just marginally more than they'd get out of piracy, and a more legitimate platform to advertise their content. Making money in music has been all about concerts and merch for a while.
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  I think think you're making a distinction where there isn't one. For example, you can license music to TV shows, political campaigns, commercials, movies, and video games. Radio stations must pay royalties for playing songs. There are plenty of revenue streams for music outside of "selling it digitally or physically" and a subscription service.
  - scarface74 10y ago
    How many songs actually get licensed for movies and tv shows out of the millions of songs that are on Spotify? Political campaigns do not have to have a license to use music. Artists have been complaining about political parties using their music forever. Radio stations have to pay royalties to the songwriters and musicians but not the singers. No matter how bad or unpopular a movie is, a studio will always make some money on a theatrically released movie, with each of the distribution mechanisms.
latch 10y ago
One has a much lower barrier to entry than the other.
rayiner 10y ago
Music is subject to compulsory licensing. Something that made sense when only big companies could record and distribute music (making cartel behavior easy), not so much now that anyone with an iPad and an internet connection can do so.
- bitJericho 10y ago
  Or perhaps it still makes sense and we should have video the same way.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    We don't license software that way, why should we license music that way?
- harryh 10y ago
  I'm not 100% sure about this, but I'm pretty sure that the compulsory licensing law that controls music distribution doesn't apply to streaming services like Spotify. If it did you wouldn't occasionally see work from high profile artists like Tayor Swift and Kanye West not appear on Spotify.
- scarface74 10y ago
  It's a little more complicated than that. -There is a compulsory performance license that allows radio stations to play any music. They have to pay the song writers and the music writers (?) a fee based on a mandated structure but not the actual singers. -There is a separate compulsory licence for Pandora like services where you can't choose your music and there are guidelines that Pandora has to abide by. -There is no compulsory license for on-demand subscription services like Spotify where you can choose the music you want to listen to.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Good point.
sehr 10y ago
Could it be partly due to how movies and shows are distributed on cable?
Coincoin 10y ago
I watch a movie maybe once a week, in my living room, but a lot go to theaters. I listen to music constantly, at work, in my car. The music industry can't get away with just ignoring the demand for streaming because of the way music is consumed today.
hanoz 10y ago
I think the difference ultimately derives from the fact that music is something you listen to again and again, which enables a small fee per listen model, which means that it makes sense to get it out there everywhere. But you're right though, the difference is stark. I don't think I've ever had a random tune I'd like to hear come to mind and fail to find it on Spotify, conversely I can honestly say that I have not once found a movie I've gone looking for on either Netflix or Amazon Prime.
nandhp 10y ago
The music industry also went to DRM-free several years ago (all the stores sell unencumbered MP3 or AAC or some lossless codec); video content has not yet caught up.

scarface74 10y ago

It's not that strange. There is only one real avenue to make money off of music -- selling it, either digitally or physically -- besides a subscription service. The movie industry can make money during different "windows". Theatrical releases, PPV from cable companies, iTunes, Amazon, etc., physical rentals, DVD and digital sells, subscription movie services (HBO, Showtime...) and regular cable TV.

ohitsdom 10y ago
It's more complicated than that. Artists benefit greatly from repeat customers, so it's to their (and their label's) advantage to expose as many people as possible to their product. This will help drive future profits through the sale of albums, merch, and concert tickets. Movie studios are dealing with a much different dynamic.
- bbctol 10y ago
  Artists barely make money off of Spotify anyway. It's just marginally more than they'd get out of piracy, and a more legitimate platform to advertise their content. Making money in music has been all about concerts and merch for a while.
the_gastropod 10y ago
I think think you're making a distinction where there isn't one. For example, you can license music to TV shows, political campaigns, commercials, movies, and video games. Radio stations must pay royalties for playing songs. There are plenty of revenue streams for music outside of "selling it digitally or physically" and a subscription service.
- scarface74 10y ago
  How many songs actually get licensed for movies and tv shows out of the millions of songs that are on Spotify? Political campaigns do not have to have a license to use music. Artists have been complaining about political parties using their music forever. Radio stations have to pay royalties to the songwriters and musicians but not the singers. No matter how bad or unpopular a movie is, a studio will always make some money on a theatrically released movie, with each of the distribution mechanisms.

latch 10y ago

One has a much lower barrier to entry than the other.

rayiner 10y ago

Music is subject to compulsory licensing. Something that made sense when only big companies could record and distribute music (making cartel behavior easy), not so much now that anyone with an iPad and an internet connection can do so.

bitJericho 10y ago
Or perhaps it still makes sense and we should have video the same way.
- rayiner 10y ago
  We don't license software that way, why should we license music that way?
harryh 10y ago
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I'm pretty sure that the compulsory licensing law that controls music distribution doesn't apply to streaming services like Spotify. If it did you wouldn't occasionally see work from high profile artists like Tayor Swift and Kanye West not appear on Spotify.
scarface74 10y ago
It's a little more complicated than that. -There is a compulsory performance license that allows radio stations to play any music. They have to pay the song writers and the music writers (?) a fee based on a mandated structure but not the actual singers. -There is a separate compulsory licence for Pandora like services where you can't choose your music and there are guidelines that Pandora has to abide by. -There is no compulsory license for on-demand subscription services like Spotify where you can choose the music you want to listen to.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Good point.

sehr 10y ago

Could it be partly due to how movies and shows are distributed on cable?

Coincoin 10y ago

I watch a movie maybe once a week, in my living room, but a lot go to theaters. I listen to music constantly, at work, in my car. The music industry can't get away with just ignoring the demand for streaming because of the way music is consumed today.

hanoz 10y ago

I think the difference ultimately derives from the fact that music is something you listen to again and again, which enables a small fee per listen model, which means that it makes sense to get it out there everywhere. But you're right though, the difference is stark. I don't think I've ever had a random tune I'd like to hear come to mind and fail to find it on Spotify, conversely I can honestly say that I have not once found a movie I've gone looking for on either Netflix or Amazon Prime.

nandhp 10y ago

The music industry also went to DRM-free several years ago (all the stores sell unencumbered MP3 or AAC or some lossless codec); video content has not yet caught up.